[Livia]

Civil partnership is the same as getting married in a registry office. I would imagine that doing the whole big white wedding thing in a church/temple/synagogue would mean you were a member of that church and a follower of that religion. Or is it just that you want the whole fancy dress and flowers in church thing? I think it's kind of shallow when hetero couples do the white wedding thing when it means nothing to them spiritually, I'd feel the same about gay "marriages".

I've been to a couple of civil partnership ceremonies and they were both lovely with the couples totally committed to each other. They didn't think that because someone doesn't call it a "marriage" it was any less binding.

[AfroMullet]

Free Dudus.

As far as gays marrying? If straight people are allowed to **** up there lives, gays should be welcome to it to.

[ILoveTRW]

Because it is wrong

[_Seth]

Originally Posted by ILoveTRW

Because it is wrong

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

[ILoveTRW]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

dirty

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Elaborate. How is love wrong?

LOL

Love isn't always hollywood and high contrast colour.

Love can be ugly, blind, immoral and vicious.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Personally my view is, Gays are *******ing stupid man! Do you know much weddings cost? They're expensive and a huge fashion rather than real life necessity.

If you want wedded rights, cool, you've got a civil partnership. I know some people who aren't gay, and are straight, who got a civil partnership for the rights it entails and then later packed it in...

Another angle is... people still see it as a lifestyle choice too and not natural and that's understandable because in a lot of cases it is a lifestyle choice. There are natural facets to it especially in a world of choice that your genetic inheritance makes you inclined to want to have anal sex with men but then that doesn't mean you can't have sex with women either - it's a sexuality choice.

Just because, you say, erm... I don't like having sex with women, you can can't you? A lot of gay man and a lot of ex-gays do it and enjoy it with the right person. This whole "I don't enjoy it with women" smacks of self righteousness especially in a world of gay bars, promiscuity, adultery and a life of multiple partners.

Can you have intercourse? Yes... well fine... the emotions, just like in any situation are varied, multiple and to cut a long story short and get to the point - subjective. You choose the emotion and what it means...

Same situation here.

So... if gays want to get married... erm... hmm... they can but they are walking into something that is wholly sacred to a lot of people and this goes back to the points above about promiscuity, gay hot spots, gay bars and generally gay culture as it has been since the turn of the century and more dominant since the legal changes we say almost half a century ago.

That sacred nature of wedding is globally a man and a woman and as I stated above, Love isn't simple.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by MassiveTruck

LOL

Love isn't always hollywood and high contrast colour.

Love can be ugly, blind, immoral and vicious.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Personally my view is, Gays are *******ing stupid man! Do you know much weddings cost? They're expensive and a huge fashion rather than real life necessity.

If you want wedded rights, cool, you've got a civil partnership. I know some people who aren't gay, and are straight, who got a civil partnership for the rights it entails and then later packed it in...

Another angle is... people still see it as a lifestyle choice too and not natural and that's understandable because in a lot of cases it is a lifestyle choice. There are natural facets to it especially in a world of choice that your genetic inheritance makes you inclined to want to have anal sex with men but then that doesn't mean you can't have sex with women either - it's a sexuality choice.

Just because, you say, erm... I don't like having sex with women, you can can't you? A lot of gay man and a lot of ex-gays do it and enjoy it with the right person. This whole "I don't enjoy it with women" smacks of self righteousness especially in a world of gay bars, promiscuity, adultery and a life of multiple partners.

Can you have intercourse? Yes... well fine... the emotions, just like in any situation are varied, multiple and to cut a long story short and get to the point - subjective. You choose the emotion and what it means...

Same situation here.

So... if gays want to get married... erm... hmm... they can but they are walking into something that is wholly sacred to a lot of people and this goes back to the points above about promiscuity, gay hot spots, gay bars and generally gay culture as it has been since the turn of the century and more dominant since the legal changes we say almost half a century ago.

That sacred nature of wedding is globally a man and a woman and as I stated above, Love isn't simple.

That didn't make any sense.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

That didn't make any sense.

I agree, except for the love is simple part. That's the only point I took from the whole thing.

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

That didn't make any sense.

Which part doesn't make sense?

It's simple.

[_Seth]

You're not making any sense.

[ILoveTRW]

I'm just ****ing with you if anything I was the first person to hate dave for his homophobic comments.

[_Seth]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Dave is not homophobic! In line with his religious views - he doesn't support gay marriage! That doesn't make him homophobic! He is as entitled to his views as those that support gay marriage!

Discluding someone from something on the grounds of them being gay is discrimination to gay people which = homophobia.

[_Seth]

It wasn't funny.

I was gonna ask how old are you? Because I just can't wait for the upper generation to die out along with their retarded views.

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by Phlip

It wasn't funny.

I was gonna ask how old are you? Because I just can't wait for the upper generation to die out along with their retarded views.

A lot of young people have similar views to homosexuality. If you think this is an age thing, I think you're in for a big surprise in 10 or 20 years time when the green economy kicks off.

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

how can some men be gay when there are so many beautiful women in the world?

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

i have one of those moral dilemma type questions

a) for all straight men and lesbian women - you meet a stunning woman in a bar, she is the sexiest women you ever seen and she is horny as hell, she says she will let you sleep with her IF you first perform oral sex on her male friend

b) for all straight women and gay men - you meet a hot hunk in a bar, he is the sexiest man you ever seen and he is horny as hell, he says he will let you sleep with him IF you first perform oral sex on his female friend

what would you do?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by oddballmisfitsFTW

how can some men be gay when there are so many beautiful women in the world?

How can some men be str8 when there are so many beautiful men in the world???

[oddballmisfitsFTW]

Originally Posted by lostalex

How can some men be str8 when there are so many beautiful men in the world???

woman's body is more beautiful as there is more variety and choice

man only has 3 things to play with (1 is hairy and dirty and the other I have one of my own anyway)

woman has 1,2,3,4, 5 things to play with

[Shasown]

Any of you brokeback mountain brigade ever think that total pandering to your wishes is actually impossible?

To legislate in your favour would mean that they order ALL religions to accept gay marriages in churches mosques and synagogues, regardless of the religious beliefs of the organisation involved.

The Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, in fact every religion just about would be up in arms, at the interference of state in religion.

Thats a lot of votes and international relations up the Swannee. Aint going to happen as long as you have holes in your a***s

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Any of you brokeback mountain brigade ever think that total pandering to your wishes is actually impossible?

To legislate in your favour would mean that they order ALL religions to accept gay marriages in churches mosques and synagogues, regardless of the religious beliefs of the organisation involved.

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.

he Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, in fact every religion just about would be up in arms, at the interference of state in religion.

Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?

Thats a lot of votes and international relations up the Swannee. Aint going to happen as long as you have holes in your a***s

It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.



Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?



It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

But all that is for the pink pound and gay tourism isn't it.

Economies come and go.

This all stems from the 19th C.

Sooner or later... nobody is going to give 2 s**ts.

Religion will evolve.

Most of what is happening is because Oil is the most lucrative commodity and when that disappears so will gay as a vote.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.

Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?

It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

In order to give the right to marriage, the Government would have had to repeal the Marriage Act, then repeal all subsidary laws based on it, thats about 15 at a rough guess for England and Wales and about 5 for Scotland. Thats just dealing with the acts that directly use the marriage act as a base. Without the few hundred that refer to to it dealing with all kinds of subjects, each in turn would need amending.

All the government had to do was replace it with a new all encompassing act and get that act and the repeals through both houses. Remembering the house of lords also has the Lords Bishops sitting for all that, every part of the new act would have been questioned, debated and amendments made in both houses causing further delays.

Governments nowadays are populist thats the problem and you may think you can just ignore any fuss kicked up by the Church of England and the Muslim Council for Britain, dont kid yourself they have enormous lobbying power. Thats without the backup of all the other churches and religions sticking in their two penneth.

The Church of England is part of the Establishment it still has considerable power. Regardless of how liberal you think this country is, there is still a homophobic undercurrent to it.

As for the argument that it wont affect religions, of course it will. First in the minds of the leaders of those religions, its another step towards them being forced to do something against the current tenets of that religion.

But if you make exemptions to a law those exemptions can be challenged up to and including in Europe. This happened with the Forces exemptions for sexual discrimination ref women being pregnant etc, then under the equality acts with homosexuals challenging the policy of not allowing them to serve.

Its okay quoting other countries that have allowed same sex marriages, there are a few more, Sweden Iceland Norway, even some US states allow it, but peoples and cultures are totally different. Just remember it may look good for Portugal to allow same sex marriages but they dont allow same sex couples to adopt.

Now you have a compromise whereby same sex couple have almost the same rights as straight couples, but it is what the government at the time knew they would be able to bring into statute. Its by no means ideal but its the best that will be allowed for a good few years yet.

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

They are exempt from the the Equality Act anyway. If gay marriage is made legal, things will carry on as normal in those places.



Nobody's religious lives would be interfered with. They can stick with their dated beliefs of their own accord while other people are free to do what they like.

Even if this weren't the case, I find your view really populist. As if a law can only be enacted if it meets the approval of opinion polls and religious hierarchies. Think of all the laws that were passed in the 1960's extending the rights of ethnic minorities which initially met with overwhelming public opposition. Should they have just waited until the public were "ready for it"?



It has already happened in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Canada and South Africa, not before time either. The Church and the the Muslim Council of Britain can chuck their toys out the pram all they like. They're not running this country.

Have you ever thought these legal changes are just to sell things to a gay market?

That the UK doesn't have to change laws because the strength of our economy and the global reliance on the UK means we don't need to?

As I said in the post that you said "made no sense", the only reason gay marriage is wanted or required is due to the money involved. It's odd to want gay marriage considering the state of gay culture with promiscuity, adultery and the general culture being built on wanting to have sex and sexual relations with another man. It's not like they cannot have sex... they can... it's just emotionally they feel, believe (subjectively, culturally subjectively) that they prefer men... but is this with multiple partners, that it must be male? Can't they have sex with a women?

Are they being stopped or what is stopping them? What exactly?

Let me explain.

My point is, it's over elaborating the sex act. On the one hand gays say they only are attracted to men - a sex thing... then we are told that they don't like women... a sex thing... but then they want gay marriage with a man (obviously) in order to have sex with a man... as though that same act, that same sexual act doesn't work with a woman. It does work. The Penis does work and many gay men can get aroused by

sex

Sex being the arousal... they have had kids...

It works... but it's just a subjective thing. An... elaboration.

To be blunt... does the penis stop working?

No...

I have asked numerous gay men this - do you get an erection from a woman? Yes. I asked a BB housemate this too... Yes.

For instance, people use history as an example but even in the most popularised example, Athens, it was little boys that were kept as sex workers for wealthy men. It wasn't Greece but Athens. It's trying to create reasoning when in fact it's something that culturally robotic that every stuck by.

So I am saying there is categorising of sexual behaviour, out of choice and this is why the need for a marriage is a bit odd considering the only reasoning (in a world of promiscuity and the ease with which one can have sex with anything that moves) is to have sexual relations with somebody. As somebody says Love is wrong... in some cases... yes, it is very very wrong and can be extremely damaging.

We make choices.

It's only as genetic as our pre-dispositions to do things. We just fall into a culture of that sort.

So in essence... considering the nature of humans and the behaviours and choices of behaviour we have, it is an industrial, economic decision by government and parliament. Anybody who thinks it is like some socialist liberal leftist fight for equality really doesn't know how the world works or how people work.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by MassiveTruck

Have you ever thought these legal changes are just to sell things to a gay market?

Newsflash, every party has their own target audience and support base. That's what lobbying organisations do. Ever figured that the voices of opposition to gay marriage are a lucrative financial opportunity for right wing parties? Ever heard of Focus on the Family and the AFA?

That the UK doesn't have to change laws because the strength of our economy and the global reliance on the UK means we don't need to?

As I said in the post that you said "made no sense", the only reason gay marriage is wanted or required is due to the money involved. It's odd to want gay marriage considering the state of gay culture with promiscuity, adultery and the general culture being built on wanting to have sex and sexual relations with another man.

Making blanket statements like that doesn't help your argument. It's like banning interracial marriage, because most people end up marrying somebody of their own skin colour.

It's not like they cannot have sex... they can... it's just emotionally they feel, believe (subjectively, culturally subjectively) that they prefer men... but is this with multiple partners, that it must be male? Can't they have sex with a women?

Again, this is a sweeping generalisation. You are essentially saying people who prefer monogamy have to take collective responsibility for other people in their minority group and shouldn't be allowed to marry. Does that go for most straight men between the ages of 16 and 25? Should we ban marriage in a registry office, because promiscuity is so common among non-religious circles?

Are they being stopped or what is stopping them? What exactly?

Because we have no sexual or romantic interest in women and why should we have to?

Let me explain.

My point is, it's over elaborating the sex act. On the one hand gays say they only are attracted to men - a sex thing... then we are told that they don't like women... a sex thing... but then they want gay marriage with a man (obviously) in order to have sex with a man... as though that same act, that same sexual act doesn't work with a woman. It does work. The Penis does work and many gay men can get aroused by

sex

Sex being the arousal... they have had kids...

It works... but it's just a subjective thing. An... elaboration.

To be blunt... does the penis stop working?

No...

I have asked numerous gay men this - do you get an erection from a woman? Yes. I asked a BB housemate this too... Yes.

I'm sorry, have you written some sort of report on this? How can I take that statement seriously? What research have you carried out? A few anecdotes? lol

For instance, people use history as an example but even in the most popularised example, Athens, it was little boys that were kept as sex workers for wealthy men. It wasn't Greece but Athens. It's trying to create reasoning when in fact it's something that culturally robotic that every stuck by.

Please take some time to correct your grammatical mistakes. I am actually having difficulty reading this now. But going on what I took from this, I gather you are saying homosexuality in the ancient world was exclusive to Athens. That couldn't be further from the truth. There was the Hellenic model of a same sex relationship with the dominant older partner and the younger submissive partner. Homosexuality was also permitted in the early days of the Roman empire. To say nothing of the polytheistic cultures of pre-colonial Africa, the Americas and Asia.

So I am saying there is categorising of sexual behaviour, out of choice and this is why the need for a marriage is a bit odd considering the only reasoning (in a world of promiscuity and the ease with which one can have sex with anything that moves) is to have sexual relations with somebody. As somebody says Love is wrong... in some cases... yes, it is very very wrong and can be extremely damaging.

Love and marriage is complex and can even ruin people's lives as much as it can bring people happiness. There again, the same is true of having children.

We make choices.

It's only as genetic as our pre-dispositions to do things. We just fall into a culture of that sort.

So in essence... considering the nature of humans and the behaviours and choices of behaviour we have, it is an industrial, economic decision by government and parliament. Anybody who thinks it is like some socialist liberal leftist fight for equality really doesn't know how the world works or how people work.

Everybody in politics is catering to one support base or the other. Labour's unwillingness to put gay civil partner ships into the law until their third term (despite promising to do so as yearly as 1996) proves that. But do you are naive if you think the people responsible for drafting Proposition 8 did so out of a genuine moral convinction.

[MassiveTruck]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Newsflash, every party has their own target audience and support base. That's what lobbying organisations do. Ever figured that the voices of opposition to gay marriage are a lucrative financial opportunity for right wing parties? Ever heard of Focus on the Family and the AFA?

Making blanket statements like that doesn't help your argument. It's like banning interracial marriage, because most people end up marrying somebody of their own skin colour.

Again, this is a sweeping generalisation. You are essentially saying people who prefer monogamy have to take collective responsibility for other people in their minority group and shouldn't be allowed to marry. Does that go for most straight men between the ages of 16 and 25? Should we ban marriage in a registry office, because promiscuity is so common among non-religious circles?

Because we have no sexual or romantic interest in women and why should we have to?

I'm sorry, have you written some sort of report on this? How can I take that statement seriously? What research have you carried out? A few anecdotes? lol

Please take some time to correct your grammatical mistakes. I am actually having difficulty reading this now. But going on what I took from this, I gather you are saying homosexuality in the ancient world was exclusive to Athens. That couldn't be further from the truth. There was the Hellenic model of a same sex relationship with the dominant older partner and the younger submissive partner. Homosexuality was also permitted in the early days of the Roman empire. To say nothing of the polytheistic cultures of pre-colonial Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Love and marriage is complex and can even ruin people's lives as much as it can bring people happiness. There again, the same is true of having children.

Everybody in politics is catering to one support base or the other. Labour's unwillingness to put gay civil partner ships into the law until their third term (despite promising to do so as yearly as 1996) proves that. But do you are naive if you think the people responsible for drafting Proposition 8 did so out of a genuine moral convinction.

I've read this three times but all I see is you've replied just for the sake of replying to give the impression you were responding.

I don't think you even touched upon what I said.